Laserfiche WebLink
Pr <br />Rudit Resulfs <br />Audited governments all used leading practices 1 through 3, <br />related to education and outreach <br />The first three leading practices address education and outreach to applicants. All <br />six audited governments used a variety of techniques to achieve the goals of these <br />practices. Often, any given activity or technique encompassed more than one <br />practice, as the examples below illustrate. <br />Designated staff to assist applicants. Governments generally designated <br />staff such as permit technicians to be the primary contact with applicants by <br />phone, email and public counter. State law requires governments to designate <br />such staff. <br />Informed applicants about application requirements. Governments <br />provided information on their websites, such as application submittal <br />checklists, to define complete applications and help ensure applicants submit <br />all required documentation. State law requires governments to specify the <br />contents of a complete permit application. <br />Held pre -application meetings. Governments required a pre -application <br />meeting for at least one permit type, and made the meeting optional or <br />recommended for other types. Reviewers used these meetings to learn <br />more about proposed projects and advise applicants if they noticed unusual <br />complexities. <br />Managers from four audited governments said they bring technical staff, such as <br />planners, into the review process early to ensure application completeness. Their <br />expertise may help catch issues that would likely result in rework during full <br />application review. Snohomish County and Vancouver also published informational <br />videos on their websites to explain the permit process. <br />Governments used IT systems to manage aspects of <br />permitting, but two could improve communication tools <br />Local governments can apply IT solutions to many steps in permitting, including <br />permit tracking systems to manage workflow and online portals to facilitate <br />application submissions and correspondence. All six audited governments had <br />some form of information systems in place to aid applicant communication, <br />process permits and maintain accurate permit records. Some governments' systems <br />allowed staff to track electronic application submissions; these systems typically <br />also allowed applicants to view the status of their application. Some systems could <br />send messages to applicants requesting additional information or corrections. <br />Nonetheless, there are opportunities to use IT systems to further improve <br />communications — internally and with applicants -- and maintain accurate permit <br />records. For example, Kittitas had a public portal to communicate with applicants, <br />although it only worked for civil and building permits. Similarly, Richland used <br />an IT system to track civil and building permits, but did not use the system for <br />Growth Management Act Audit Results 129 <br />